 | | Re: How to start a fire. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | (...) Going on the assumption that abortion = murder, your argument is that an unconnected wrong justifies another. This requires that you prove any abortion = murder without condition (not to mention you are still saddled with proving one wrong (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) No I think he took it exactly as I intended. Along the lines of "why are people making such a fuss over this when there are far worse evils to be stopping first." Also you might want to read: (URL) Petrucelli (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) So, an unrelated wrong justifies the other. Nonsense. Nor is the "wrong" proven, just your opinion. (...) Why? -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) No an unrelated wrong does not justify the other. However it is receiving undue attention when there are larger concerns to worry about. Much like I can not figure out why everyone made such a big deal about the space shuttle accident. Far (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: How to start a fire. —David Koudys
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) I think, at least for me, and I believe I've heard others describe it this way--like when Kennedy got shot, when the Apollo 1 caught fire, when the Challenger blew up, and (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
